Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is.
I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

ASSUMING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM IS A NECESSITY OF PERFORMING SCIENCE!!! EVERY THEORY IN EVERY FIELD OF SCIENCE ASSUMES IT!!!

Methodological naturalism is a failed philosophy- and it fails the regress test as natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.

Huge failure, right off the bat.

Also limiting scientific inquiry and starting with a conclusion (question-begging) is another huge science-fail. A clsed science is a useless science and a science ruled by methodological naturalism is a closed science.

As I said if natural processes could not have done it then something other than natural processes did.

It all goes back to Newton's First Rule- that's right you choked on that too.

For EXAMPLE natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. So if natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature then something other than natural- non-batural, perhaps- had to have been involved.

"We have already seen that no miracle is evident in the big bang. It follows that its appearance could have been natural. Indeed, this is the more rational conclusion based on the absence of any violation of known physical principles. Prominent physicists and cosmologists have published, in reputable scientific journals, a number of proposals for how the universe could have come about “from nothing” naturally.17 These are speculative, to be sure, but they are speculations based on established knowledge. None violate any known laws of physics. These authors do not claim to “prove” that this is how it all happened. The burden of proof is on those who wish to claim these scenarios are impossible. "

Of course it does. In order to reach an affirmative, ie a "Yes" it takes positive evidence.

There needs to be positive evidence for a crime and positive evidence for an artifact. But first one must also eliminate necessity and chance.

Richtard: It goes 'not this nor that therefore this other thing'.

No, it doesn't and only an ignorant fuck would say such a thing.

There isn't a default to design after necessity and chance have been eliminated. It takes positive evidence for design at the last node in order ro reach a design inference. And yes it could be as little as "it looks designed", because once other causes are eliminated just looking designed is more than enough to investigate that possibility.

The term "supernatural" is meaningless if all observable reality (aka "nature") has been created? Because in that case all observable reality is not natural but actually artificial and we are unable to observe actual "nature".

It wouldn't even surprise me if our linear time is only linear to us and much more fluid for anything outside[1], in which case "before the big bang" would be meaningless because even time as we experience it would be artificial and without any baring on time outside our reality.

[1] Perhaps comparable to "lazy evaluation", "conditional evaluation", etc in computers? It would explain a lot of observed quantum weirdness.

What we can observe is not the absolute absence of any device, our abilities to observe are more limited. At best we can see (given our primitive tools of observation, poor understanding and very limited knowledge) is the absence of any recognizable device which could explain what we observe.